Who's better gamers?

[Draven]

After starting collecting NES games a few years back I've noticed something: I'm not as quick as I used to be. Sure, it could be attributed to old age (although I'm only 27), but I think it has more to do with the current gen systems. I'm not hating on new-school gamers, don't take me wrong, but back in the day you had to sit for hours in front of a tv set to beat a game and were forced to memorize boards and only relied on fast reflexes (or for others a rapid fire controller or a very limited selection of cheat codes). New games seem easier, though lengthier, and to further prove this I let my step-son see what the 8-bit era was all about first hand. He spent more time switching games than actually playing because he became so frustrated by the difficulty. Anyone else agree/disagree?

[kupomogli]

Well that's kindof a fact. Games these days other than FPS or fighters almost take no skill what so ever. There are a few out there that are slightly difficult, but it's not until you put the games on Hard or Very Hard.

However. I do have to give some sortof props to the Mega Man Zero fans out there that are actually new gamers. The Mega Man Zero games are very difficult solely because they rely on you knowing where these multiple areas of cheap deaths, cheap enemy placement etc, are. Much harder than the original Mega Man games in my opinion.

I'll tell you that I know I'm a better gamer than the majority of people out there, however, I'm not as good as I once was when I was younger. Back then I played games 24/7 just about. Now days I play games so rarely in comparison that it takes me atleast a week minimum to complete a game, depending on the type. It's not really that I'm not as good now as I'd probably be better than I was if I played games more often.

[TheRealist50]

I agree, thats why when I play games on my 360 its mainly for online. If I want a challenge ill pop in Ninja Gaiden for the NES. Games like Left 4 Dead are awesome simply because its never the same so you can't memorize a pattern. If you get gang raped by zombies at the start of the game...next game you probably won't and instead you will get raped somewhere else.

The thing that makes games so easy now a days is because there are saves. I remember me playing Sonic...I get deep into the game and I die...I can't just reload the game at my last save and try again...oh no sir. You have to start at the very start. Kids today don't have the attention span or the patience to sit through it all over again.

[Graham Mitchell]

I agree, thats why when I play games on my 360 its mainly for online. If I want a challenge ill pop in Ninja Gaiden for the NES. Games like Left 4 Dead are awesome simply because its never the same so you can't memorize a pattern. If you get gang raped by zombies at the start of the game...next game you probably won't and instead you will get raped somewhere else.

The thing that makes games so easy now a days is because there are saves. I remember me playing Sonic...I get deep into the game and I die...I can't just reload the game at my last save and try again...oh no sir. You have to start at the very start. Kids today don't have the attention span or the patience to sit through it all over again.

But I think the ability to save enhances the experience. I'm much less likely to play something from the beginning a hundred times.

There are some games that still push you to think and make you perform the same tasks over and over again. I spent over an hour on one room of Portals last night. I was impressed with myself for figuring it out without gamefaqs!

[Draven]

GameFAQs. We never had access to stuff like that. Nintendo Power Hotline was about it. Then you'd end up with a counselor telling you to be patient or take a break cause there were no secrets to it. I agree with TheRealist...kids just don't have the attention span required anymore. I think games today are far better in terms of AI, features, etc, but not near as challenging. And I'm not just referring to all the cheap deaths found in old platformers.

[skaar]

Modern games are more about the gaming "experience" than challenge. They want to bring you along for the ride... and other than a bit of frustration now and again, they're pretty freaking easy.

That or they make themselves more challenging by introducing insane random insta-death.

[kedawa]

My hand-eye coordination is still good, but I can't be bothered with rote memorization any more, so some games are just impenetrable to me.

I find with most modern games, the wonky controls give me more of a challenge than the actual game does.

[TheRealist50]

But I think the ability to save enhances the experience. I'm much less likely to play something from the beginning a hundred times.

yeah thats also true. I don't mind saves when the only point that saves is after the level is over. Saves throughout a level just doesn't make any sense too me.

[Graham Mitchell]

yeah thats also true. I don't mind saves when the only point that saves is after the level is over. Saves throughout a level just doesn't make any sense too me.

Go through medical school and/or residency. You'll bless the developers for a "save anywhere" model because it gives you the ability to play for 5 minutes and get somewhere. I couldn't touch my classic games during medical school. I remember I bought NES Willow and just gave up when I remembered that you are required to sit there for at times 2-3 hours without stopping in order to complete a dungeon.

[kupomogli]

Save points are nice if the games are really long. For a stage based games that are shorter I'd rather not have save points.

However, it really depends on the game whether save or whether saving is good or not. On the original Mega Man games, saving doesn't feel right how the stages and the game is setup. However, on other titles like the Mega Man X series or the Zero series, saving is a nice feature as there are extra power ups that can be collected in each stage. In Powered Up, there are also those extras that can be collected, plus the addition of finishing the stages without taking damage and the inclusion of choosing from all the robot masters, Roll, and Proto Man.

Another example is games like the Castlevania series. The exploration based CV games such as SotN, saving is obviously there because the games are a couple hours. However if you take the rereleased GBA version of the original CV, as it did included saving, it felt really out of place since the game can be completed in 20-30 minutes.

Finally. Even though RPGs are probably one of my favorite genres, they'd suck without saving.

[j_factor]

I think there are a lot of reasons for this. One is the proliferation of adventure elements in just about every game (back in the day, adventure games were quite different for their laid-back nature). Another would be the move to 3D, as it's harder to get everything right when you have issues such as camera and controls, and these flaws are more easily forgiven if the game isn't too difficult. Another reason is the shift to emphasize things like game length, unlockables, and crap like that.

On the other hand, there are still hard games out there. Even some "casual games" provide a good challenge.

[Suzaku]

I'd think that the older you get the better the gamer you can potentially be. I find that I'm more patient now than I used to be, and I can see patterns more easily. Also, problem solving skills tend to be more developed later on, too.

The flip side is that these skills aren't necessary for the most part nowadays, today's games simply aren't made so as to require exercising them. Back in the day a game was almost like a gauntlet thrown down by the programmers going "Here ya go. We made this. Now beat it." The point of the old games was to beat them. That was it. Get to then end, whoop the final boss, watch the credits roll. The story was there to provide a background reason for going through the game, but the real point to it was to simply get to the ending.

Now most games are more story-driven, and the point of the game IS the story. As was previously mentioned, the focus in today's games is the experience, and getting to the next point in the story. This leads to easier (not necessarily to be confused with simpler) games. The point of the games is to go experience the story, or the depth of the world, or some other thing. The gameplay is simply the mechanism by which we do that. Change in focus, change in difficulty.

The other issue I've found when talking to people is that it seems there is less of a sense of accomplishment for beating a segment of a game than there used to be. Beating a single level, or boss, or even section of a game isn't seen as any great thing anymore. The question isn't "hey, did you get past level 4?" Instead it's "have you beaten the game yet?" Expectations have changed, which in turn changes the standard. Pure challenge for the sake of challenge seems to be pretty much gone, except in rare cases (Ninja Gaiden....).

Ultimately I believe that gamers who want to challenge themselves will end up being better gamers than ones who don't. Being a good gamer is a mindset more than it is tied up in the era of gaming you were born into, or even the games you play. I also don't think that era makes a huge difference, because there aren't any really thick barriers preventing one to play older games. A lot of them are readily available in physical form, and then there's always emulation. If someone wants to (re)live the challenges of the olden days, they can.